In Wartime, Critics Question Peace Prize for Environmentalism

Published: October 10, 2004

The decision by the five-member Nobel Committee to award this year's Nobel Peace Prize to an environmental activist prompted some prominent Norwegians to criticize the selection, saying the effectiveness of the prize in promoting peace, enhancing security and ending conflicts could be diluted.

In Norway's reserved and polite style of public debate, critics joined Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik in congratulating and praising Wangari Maathai for receiving this year's prize, which includes a $1.36 million cash award, in recognition of her work in Africa fighting deforestation and her advocacy for democracy and women's rights.

But then some prominent voices here wondered whether giving the prize for environmental activism, while a laudable activity, in a time of global concerns about war in the Middle East, terrorism and nuclear proliferation was underplaying the potential of the prestigious award.

''I thought the intention of Alfred Nobel's will was to focus on a person or organization who had worked actively for peace,'' said Carl I. Hagen, leader of the Progress Party, whose senior political adviser, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, is a member of the Nobel Committee. ''It is odd that the committee has completely overlooked the unrest that the world is living with daily, and given the prize to an environmental activist,'' he told Norwegian state television on Friday.

Espen Barth Eide, a former deputy foreign minister, said: ''The one thing the Nobel Committee does is define the topic of this epoch in the field of peace and security. If they widen it too much, they risk undermining the core function of the Peace Prize; you end up saying everything that is good is peace.''

Nobel committee officials said Friday that they were further expanding the reach of the prize to recognize environmentalism as a critical global issue. Work in humanism and human rights activism has already been recognized.

''I know some people have said the committee is enlarging the peace vocabulary with this award,'' Mr. Hagen said, ''but I think they should have gone the other way. It's fine to fight for human rights and the environment, but this is the Nobel Peace Prize.''

But other prominent voices disagreed.

On Saturday morning, Aftenposten, Norway's most influential paper, admitted that it was possible to ask, ''What does tree planting have to do with peace?''

But the answer, the newspaper replied, can be found in the Amazon, Haiti, China and Africa where deforestation, erosion and climate change ''have changed the conditions of life for millions of people, led to hunger and need, created tensions between populations and countries.''

Therefore, the newspaper concluded, ''there is something untraditional and exciting with this award.''

Former Prime Minister Kaare Willoch said in an interview that he, too, ''would have expected that the Peace Prize would have dealt with nuclear proliferation, but I am in full agreement that there are good reasons for this prize, too.''

He said environmental and development problems in the third world were ''distantly related to terrorism'' because they exposed the divide between wealthy and poor nations and thus engendered resentment, hatred and, eventually, threats to security.

''I will not participate with criticism of this prize,'' he said, ''because it is intensely important to the Western world to understand what is going on in less advantaged countries and to contribute to the improvement of conditions.''